M.A.M. v. Commonwealth: ___, S.W.3d
____, 2013WL1488509 (Ky. App. 2013)(Motion to Publish pending, not yet final):
Finding there was a Boykin violation even though counsel present when
M.A.M not informed of what rights would be waived or the consequences of an
admission to the charges. “the family court made no inquiry during the November
15, 2011 adjudication hearing as to the veracity of the charges or of the
child's stipulation, and no inquiry was made as to whether M.A. M.'s
stipulation was voluntary or coerced. Nor did the court inform the child during
that hearing and before accepting his plea of what the possible consequences,
in terms of the range of punishments, would be if he admitted his guilt.”
The court also held that children cannot
be held in contempt for pre-adjudication orders because have not received their
full due process rights! Specifically the court held, “In the present case, the
JSOO was entered based solely on the allegations against the child. M.A.M. did
not receive his full due process rights before the order was entered.
Consequently, the (court order) was not a valid court order, and the child
could not be held in contempt for violating it.”
Practice Tip:
Always object to the entering of pre-adjudication orders, but if they get
entered you can argue against any pick-up orders or contempt hearings based on
violations of these pre-adjudication orders on due process grounds.
Contributed by La Mer Kyle-Griffiths
